Science: A Method not a Source

Not really. All conclusions are "tentative" in the technical sense. That doesn't excuse conclusions that are wrong because they exceed the evidence or ignore it. I'm not sure how he would arrive at "our current figure". Only that he has no basis for dating the origin of the human race as contemporaneous with the first person anyone he can find can remember.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Maybe I missed it in the underbrush but:The evidence he has is that all offspring have parents. Why would he even wonder about a "beginning"?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

perhaps this "Beginning" came up in some of the campfire stories...and he was curious.

It wasn't mentioned that he had this evidence in the OP, but if we do throw this into the mix of evidence he has, then yes, it would definitely alter his conclusion. He may end up concluding that all living things that currently exist have existed forever. Given this additional evidence, such would certainly be a reasonable conclusion.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

You misunderstood. By saying 'a conclusion that includes our current figure', I was talking about the use of a lower limit (by means of at least) that excluded any values under 300 years, but made any value beyond 300 years (including our own currently-accepted figure) possible and in accordance with the conclusion. Because a conclusion of at least accords with our present figure, I feel folk are jumping to require such wording, but I am not certain his evidence, or the scientific method, requires it.Why must he place a lower limit, even in a tentative conclusion? This has me confused. What evidence did the lad have (as discussed in the OP) that he ignored or from which drew too strict a conclusion? Okay, then why must he place a lower limit? How is failing to place a lower limit wrong by way of exceeding or ignoring evidence?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Everybody has that evidence. He knew he had "parents". He knew about "generations".His hypothesis that the human race has an "age" was contrary to all observations (available at the time). He was outside the scientific method as soon as he asked the question.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Whether he had the evidence or not is tough to say, as he is a completely fictional character. The issue is whether or not given the evidence he is said to have had (as laid out in the OP) his conclusion was derived scientifically. If he had the evidence 'all offspring have parents', then his conclusion is not likely scientifically derived.Whether or not inquiring about his ancestry constitutes evidence of him having this knowledge (and it may well be the case that it does) is somewhat off the point. Whether you believe him to have this evidence or you do not believe him to have this evidence, the two conclusions he draws are both very much scientifically derived in their relationship to the evidence we know he has.So, a question for everyone: Let's say he does have the evidence ringo says he has, that all offspring have parents, would his conclusion that the human race is eternal, then, have been scientifically derived?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Everybody he knew had parents. That's the evidence he had. It seems like a reasonable assumption that people he didn't know had parents too. It doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption that there was ever anybody who didn't have parents. I wouldn't use the word "eternal". That seems outside the scientific method too.The scientific conclusion would have been that, given the available evidence, there was no reason to think about a "beginning" at all.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? It’s your scenario and as described by you in the OP I cannot see any mention of him doing this at all. If he did can you give me an instance where he did do this including details of the prediction made and the actions carried out to test this prediction?But whether he did or he didn’t do this my question to you remains the same — Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Whether or not we can expect the lad in question to be aware of the scientific method or come to accurate conclusions regarding the question he is asking is another matter. I simply dispute that he was actually following the scientific method. An ability to make specific verified predictions is not an indicator of the accuracy of anything as far as you are concerned then?Then can I ask you why you think scientists bother to make predictions and test them? So all unfalsified conclusions are equally accurate as far as you are concerned? For example would you not agree that the conclusion that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun rather than being flat and fixed in space is a conclusion that is so well verified and thus deemed to be accurate to such a degree that any tentativity is purely philosophical? Well if prediction is the method by which we test and determine the accuracy of our models, theories and conclusions it is rather key to the topic is it not?So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you predict that human sacrifice is what sustains the world, and so sacrifice humans and find that the world continues, does that validate the prediction?If you predict that the reason the crops failed this year is because people did not perform the rites properly and so they propitiate and next year the crops are better, does that validate the predition?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Superficially. However if you predict that human sacrifice is what sustains the world, and then don't sacrifice any humans and find that the world continues that does rather comprehensively refute your theory. And is thus a much better test of the causal relationship you have suggested.The trick here is to actually seek to test your theory. Either by refuting vague and generalised predictions that outright falsify your theory or (preferably) by confirming highly specific predictions which cannot just be guessed at.Although if you genuinely believe your actions will result in the end of the world you may not wish to undertake this sort of test. But that says more about the strength of belief than the accuracy of the conclusion. Bearing in mind the above do you think this is a good test of the theory in question? Or does it tell us more about the belief than the causal relationship under consideration?Compare this with (for example) the sorts of precise predictions made by the Big Bang theory or the readily falsifiable predictions made by evolutionary theory.You need to consider why we are testing predictions. Not just mindlessly follow some script. Science is a human endevour. If it were simply a logical algorithm we could just let the computers get on with scientific research while we sat on the beach.So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But what you suggest is a rather stupid experiment, fraught with way too much danger for any rational person to attempt. It is part of the MODERN scientific method and actually irrelevant to the thread.Edited by jar, : missed the question

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well that depends on ones beliefs.If one believes that answering people called jar on debate boards on the 1st of November 2010 will result in your head exploding then answering people called jar on debate boards on this date to test if this actually occurs would arguably be a "stupid experiment, fraught with way too much danger for any rational person to attempt".But the rationality of this test is to a large degree dependent on the rationality of the original belief is it not? Oh so this thread is about the OLD scientific method is it?Can you describe this OLD scientific method and point out where it differs significantly from the MODERN scientific method?Do you consider the MODERN scientific method to be superior in terms of accuracy and reliability of results?

No, not really. The scientific method itself is a fairly recent development. The systems used in the past were the best ones available to the people at the time. They looked at experience.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

He knows (I presume) how people originate and how memories originate. Because any other hypothesis violates parsimony. When he finds that his grandfather remembers his grandfather, he can either suppose that he himself did, in fact, have a great-great-grandfather, or he can formulate some sort of omphalic hypothesis that involving his grandfather falling out of a hole in the sky and acquiring a set of false grandparental memories as he did so.Now, this would ignore the facts, known to him, about how people are born and how memories are formed.